MANURE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Much Good

Unless you spread it Money is like manure. around, it doesn't do NutrientsNutrients ofof PrimaryPrimary ConcernConcern

NitrogenNitrogen --NN

PhosphorusPhosphorus -- PP P Transport To Surface Waters

Soil Surface Soluble P (Dissolved) Particulate P (Sediment) R unoff

~ 1/2 - 1“ Soil/Water Soil Mixing Zone Dissolved P vs. 0 to 2-Inch Soil Test P adapted from Sharpley et al. 1994. JEQ 23:437-451

1.6 Grassland, r 2 = 0.62 1.4 1.2

0.8 0.6 2 0.4 Cropland, r = 0.85 0.2 Grassland, r 2 = 0.90 Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm Dissolved P Dissolved P in Runoff, ppm Dissolved P 0

0 100Mehlich 3 200 Soil test P, 300 lb/A 400 500 Tillage D P PP Total DP Total PP Intensity Concentration Loss (lb/A)

Reduced ?

Conventional ?

DP = Dissolved P PP = Particulate P

Several Studies Indicate That Up To 90% Of Annual P Loading May Come From Less Than 10% Of Landscape (Heathwaite et al., 1998)

P Threshold Approach

• Critical soil test levels established above which P applications are prohibited or restricted

• Critical soil test levels based on water quality criteria ? P Threshold Approach

•Advantages – Simple, understandable and easy to implement – Based on water quality (hopefully) – Much better than agronomic response soil test approach

•Disadvantages – Assumes all of landscape has equal environmental sensitivity – Does not consider P transport – Developed mainly for manure management – Does not address cultural management of soils – Based on limited data Critical STP Values

State Level Method -- mg/kg -- AR 150 Mehlich 3 CO 100 AB-DTPA DE 120 Mehlich 1 KS 100-200 Bray 1 OH 150 Bray 1 OK 130 Mehlich 3 WI 75 Bray 1 TX 200 A&M

Source: Daniel et al., 1998; http://ces.soil.ncsu.edu/sera17/ Kansas Department of Agriculture

(1) Input Form for Nutrient Utilization Plan Worksheet DATE:

GENERAL INFORMATION: Producer: Me CROP ROTATION: Year* Crop Yield % of max County: Ness Field ID: 1 Previous: 2000 Corn xxx applied** Initial: 2001 Corn 170 100% Category: 18 Crop Acres in Field: 0 2002 Corn 170 100% 2003 Corn 170 100% Max Soil Test P Level (ppm): 200 Estimated Annual Swine 2004 Corn 170 100% Waste for Application 2005 Corn 170 100% KDHE Permit Number (Tons or Gallons) * Previous is the year prior to the initiall year of the plan. or KDHE Application No: 123 1,000 ** Percent of maximum manure allowed,ed, projected to be applied.

TYPE OF IRRIGATION: SOIL ANALYSIS: None (dryland) x Mark an "x" in the box Soil Type Testing Method Depth NO3 - N ppm P ppm Center Pivot that most closely Check Appropriate Box "x" Check Appropriate Box 0 - 6" 6618 Dragline/inject identifies your system Sandy Soil Bray-1 x 6 - 12" xxx Traveling Gun Med & Fine Texture x Mehlich-3 12 - 18" xxx Flood Olsen 18 - 24" xxx

MANURE ANALYSIS (from your report) -- liquid or solid solid MANURE BOOK VALUES* SWINE WASTE INFORMATION: Nutrient mg/kg ppm lbs/acre-in lbs/ton N** Waste Characteristics: Mark an "x" in appropriateopriate box below ((one only) Total N 12000 12000 0 24.0 Solid, Without Bedding - Incorporated (within 24 hours) Organic N 8500 8500 0 17.0 P2O5** Solid, Without Bedding - Surface applied x NH4-N 3500 3500 0 7.0 Solid, With Bedding - Incorporated (within 24 hours)urs) NO3-N 0 000.0 * Enter these values only Solid, With Bedding - Surface applied P2O5 11000 11000 0 22.0 if you do not have manure Liquid Pit, Incorporated (within 24 hours) Was swine waste applied to this field analysis figures and you Liquid Pit, Surface Applied Last year (Y/N)? N are using book values Lagoon, Incorporated (within 24 hours) Two years ago (Y/N)? N other than listed in "Manure" Lagoon, Surface Applied ** (lbs/ton)

NOTES: Developed by: Kansas Departmentpartment of AgricAgricultureu and Kansassas State UniverUniversity.s

For information contact: GarryGarry L. Keeler (785) 296-3786 (1.2) email: [email protected]@KDA.state.ks.ust Kansas New Swine Manure Regulations - 1999

22 “ Precipitation 30 “ Precipitation

Maximum P Soil Test:

200 / 150ppm Bray P1 Mehlich 3 Maximum P Soil Test: 78 / 57 ppm Olsen 100 ppm Bray P1 or Maximum P Soil Test: Mehlich 3 150 / 100 ppm Bray P1 38 ppm Olsen Mehlich 3

57 / 38 ppm Olsen

22 “ Precipitation 30 “ Precipitation Kansas P Index

• NRCS approach to P management

• Under development/review

• Difficult to identify data for development Kansas P Index

•P Source – Soil test P – P fertilizer application rate and method – Organic P application rate and method

•P Transport – Soil erosion – Soil runoff class – Distance to surface water or drainage way – Irrigation erosion Selected Value Bench Source Characteristics After Phosphorus Loss Rating mark Bray P1 or Mehlich III Soil Test Olsen Soil Test < 25 ppm < 16 ppm 1 Soil Test P 26 - 50 ppm 17 - 31 ppm 2 22 51 - 75 ppm 32 - 47 ppm 4 76 - 100 ppm 48 - 62 ppm 8 >100 ppm > 62 ppm 10 Annual Average

Fertilizer P Lbs Fertilizer P2O5 Applied 20 20 Application Rate 0.10 X (lbs P2O5) 2.0 2.0 (lbs P2O5/ac)

None applied 0

Starter applied at planting or injected deeper than 2 inches 1 11 Fertilizer P Application Broadcast AND incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug OR Method Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 2 hay and pasture land

Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug (no residues or pasture) OR

Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 4 hay and pasture land OR Broadcast AND incorporated Sept-Oct or Mar-June (no residue or pasture)

Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sep-Oct and Mar-June 8

Annual Average

Organic P Lbs P2O5 Applied Contained In Manure or Compost 070 Application Rate 0.10 X (lbs P2O5) 0.0 7.0 (lbs P2O5/ac)

None applied 0

Starter applied at planting or injected deeper than 2 inches 1 Organic P Application Broadcast AND incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug OR Method Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug with standing corn, sorghum or smallgrain residue or 2 2 hay and pasture land

Broadcast / NOT incorporated Nov-Feb or July-Aug (no residues or pasture) OR

Broadcast / NOT incorporated Sep-Oct and Mar-June 8

June 2004 Total Source Value 5.0 14.0 Kansas P Index Source Components Phosphorus Application Calendar

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Placed with planter or subsurface applied at least 2 inches deep

Broadcast and incorporated within 48 hours of application

Broadcast and NOT incorporated with growing summer crop, standing residues, hay, or pasture

Broadcast and NOT incorporated or incorporated more than 48 hours after application without growing summer crop or residues

Best Phosphorus Application Good Phosphorus Application Management Practice 1 point Management Practice 2 points

Poor-Fair Phosphorus Application Poor Phosphorus Application Management Practice 4 points Management Practice 8 points Kansas Site Assessment Index - Phosphorus Page 2

Selected Value Bench Transport After Characteristics mark Average From Ephemeral and Classic Gully 00 Soil Erosion by Water 2 X (tons/ac./yr.) 0.0 0.0 (tons/acre/year) Tons From RUSLE 1.5 1.5 2 X (tons/ac./yr.) 3.0 3.0

Soil Run-off Very Low 0 Classification Low 2 22 Medium 4 (From NRCS Kansas Map High Unit Descriptions) 8 Very High 16

Field not in proximity of intermittent stream 0

Within 300 feet of intermittent stream 2 Proximity of field to 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * perennial streams, * 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer perennial surface water 4 4 4 bodies or intermittent Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * streams Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * 8 Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - with effective buffer *

Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - without effective buffer * 16

N/A 0 Furrow Irrigation Erosion QS is gallon/minute/furrow With tail water recovery, QS < 6 severe erodibility hazard soils and QS < 10 other soils 2 divided by the % slope. Soil QS > 10 for slight erodibility hazard soils 4 erodibility hazard factors are in Table 1. QS > 10 for moderate erodibility hazard soils 8 QS > 6 for severe erodibility hazard soils 16

N/A or little or no runoff indicated 0 Sprinkler System Erosion/Run-off LP on 0 to 3% slopes or HP on 0 to 8 % slopes for non-sandy sites or all sandy sites 2 22 (Sandy soils include all sands and loamy sands. HP on non-sandy sites > 8 % slope, and LP on non-sandy sites 3 to 5 % slopes 4 Non-sandy soils include all others (See Table 2). LP on non-sandy sites 5 to 8 % slopes 8 LP on non-sandy sites 8 % or steeper slopes 16

* Effective buffers are permanent vegatative buffers meeting NRCS standards Total Transport Value 11.0 11.0 X (From Page 1) Total Source Value 5.0 14.0

Total Transport Value X Total Source Value = P Loss Rating Value 55 154 VERY MEDIU P Loss Risk LOW M Kansas P Index Transport Components

Proximity to surface streams and other surface water bodies ---

Field not in proximity of intermittent stream 0

Within 300 feet of intermittent stream Proximity of field to 2 perennial streams, 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * perennial surface 180 to 300 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * water bodies or 4 intermittent streams Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - with effective buffer * Within 180 feet of perennial stream or water body - without effective buffer * 8 Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - with effective buffer * Immediately adjacent to perennial stream or surface water - without effective buffer * 16 Kansas Phosphorus Site Index Management Interpretations

P Loss Rating P Site Index Value Interpretation Management Suggestions

0 - 75 VERY LOW If current farming practices are continued and site characteristics do not change, there is low probability of an adverse impact to surface 76 - 150 LOW waters from P losses at this site. Nitrogen based nutrient management planning is satisfactory for this site. Implement practices to reduce P losses by surface runoff and erosion. Consider crops with high P removal capacities. In some cases P 151 - 300 MEDIUM fertilizer will not be needed. Restrict manure application and a long term P management plan should be used. If current practices are continued and site characteristics do not change, there is a risk of adverse impacts on surface water. P 301 - 600 HIGH management needs to be modified to reduce the risk of P movement . Use phosphorus-based nutrient management planning. Current practices are likely creating adverse impacts on surface water > 600 VERY HIGH quality. Management practices should be modified to reduce hazards. Additional P applications are not warranted.

NRCS, June 2004 Kansas P Index - Manure Application Interpretations

0-31 P Index Approach

•Advantages – Comprehensive view of P loss from landscape – BMP's are a logical conclusion – Flexibility • Disadvantages – Not ready for implementation in many states – Inputs not trivial Barn Area High Soil P

Prior Manure Application Practices May Make It Desirable To Change Application Patterns and/or Split Fields For Soil Sampling.

Low Soil P Approximate Fertilizer Value of Manure - Liquid Handling System

Animal Available Nutrients

NP2O5 K2OS lb/1000 gal. Swine 33 25 38 5-8 Beef Cattle 27 20 38 --- Dairy 25 10 32 3 Poultry 72 49 53 ---

Source: University of Choice MANURE LAB RESULTS Nutrient content normally reported on an ‘as-is’ moisture basis. Lbs per ton (as-is) Lbs per 1000 gallons Lbs per acre-inch

Percent Nutrient = ppm / 10,000 Lbs per ton = Percent X 20 Lbs per 1000 gallons = Percent X 85 MANURE LAB RESULTS

Servi-Tech Laboratories 1816 East Wyatt Earp - P.O. Box 1397 - Dodge City, Kansas 67801 Phone 620-227-7123 * FAX 620-227-2047

Sent to: MANURE SURVEY Lab no.: 1261 Date received: 1-Sep-98 Date reported: 16-Apr-01

Results for: MANURE SURVEY Sample Identification: SW KS FEEDLOTS

MANURE/BIOSOLIDS ANALYSIS RESULTS Estimated available Analysis results, Total content, first year, "as received" or pounds per ton pounds per ton "wet" basis (as rec'd) (as rec'd) NUTRIENTS Nitrogen Nitrogen, total N ...... 1.05 % ...... 21.0 ...... 10.8 Organic-nitrogen, OrgN ...... 0.91 % ...... 18.2 ...... 8.0 Ammonia-nitrogen, NH4-N ...... 0.14 % ...... 2.8 ...... 2.8 Nitrate-nitrogen, NO3-N ...... < 0.01 % ...... < 0.1 ...... < 0.1

Major & secondary nutrients Phosphorus, P ...... 0.42 % Phosphate, P2O5 ...... 0.96 % ...... 19.2 ...... 17.3 Potassium, K ...... 1.09 % Potash, K2O ...... 1.26 % ...... 25.2 ...... 25.2 Sulfur, S ...... 0.29 % ...... 5.8 ...... 2.5 Calcium, Ca ...... 2.31 % ...... 46.2 ...... 46.2 Magnesium, Mg ...... 0.25 % ...... Magnesium oxide, MgO ...... 0.42 % ...... 8.4 ...... 8.4 Sodium, Na ...... 0.22 % ...... 4.4 ...... 4.4

Micronutrients Zinc, Zn ...... 131 ppm ...... 0.26 ...... 0.13 Iron, Fe ...... 6386 ppm ...... 12.77 ...... 6.39 Manganese, Mn ...... 192 ppm ...... 0.38 ...... 0.19 Copper, Cu ...... 24 ppm ...... 0.05 ...... 0.02 Boron, B ...... 13 ppm ...... 0.03 ...... 0.01

OTHER PROPERTIES:

Moisture ...... 21.8 % ...... 436 Survey of manure analyses conducted by Servi-Tech Laboratories, Dodge Solids (total) ...... 78.2 % ...... 1564 City, Kansas, from manure samples Organic matter (volatile solids) ...... 21.1 % ...... 422 submitted from January 1996 to December 1998.. Samples submitted Ash (fixed solids) ...... 54.7 % ...... 1094 by cattle feedlots, consultants, and Carbon:nitrogen ratio ...... 11:1 crop advisors from southwest Kansas. Electrical conductivity, EC ...... 49.0 mmho/cm Sponsored by Kansas Livestock pH 7.7 Association. Total salts ...... 8.6 % ...... 172 Variability Of Liquid Swine Manure Analysis

Liquid Minn. (51 Farms) Wisc. (260 Samples) Swine Ave. Range Ave. Range

Total N 48 7-107 40 1-281 Total P2O5 28 3-64 19 1-141 Total K2O 21 7-51 15 2-83

Segregation ??

J.B. Peters and S.M. Combs, Wisconsin, 1998 DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS IN SOLID AND LIQUID PORTIONS OF MANURE

Light Blue = solid 100 Blue = liquid 80

0 N P2O5 K2O Cattle Manure / Compost Moisture Content

Solid Manure % Moisture 18 21 36 27 66 27 30 % Dry Matter 82 79 64 73 34 72 70

Compost % Moisture 20 48 51 27 30 40 17 % Dry Matter 80 52 49 73 70 60 83

Analysis From: Ray Ward Ward Laboratory Kearney,NE P and K Removal In Crops Crop Unit P2O5 K2O Alfalfa lbs/ton 12.00 60.00 Red clover lbs/ton 12.00 50.00 Bermudagrass lbs/ton 12.00 40.00 Bromegrass lbs/ton 12.00 40.00 Fescue, tall lbs/ton 12.00 40.00 Corn lbs/bu 0.33 0.26 Corn silage lbs/ton 3.20 8.70 Grain sorghum lbs/bu 0.40 0.26 Sorghum silage lbs/ton 3.20 8.70 Wheat lbs/bu 0.50 0.30 Sunflowers lbs/cwt 1.50 0.60 Oats lbs/bu 0.25 0.20 Soybeans lbs/bu 0.80 1.40 Native grass lbs/ton 5.40 30.00 Manure Nutrient Management - Rate •Crop requirements •N content of manure •Ratio of organic/inorganic-N •Method of application •Previous cropping history •Residual nitrogen •Mineralization rate (manure and soil) •Rainfall Nitrogen Fixation by Nitrogen Cycle Lightning

Soil Organic Matter M i ne M ra inera li Legume lizatio za n tion Fixation of Atmospheric Animal Manures Immobilization NH + Crop Residues 4 N2 Ammonium

I mm ob il ) iza tio n Ammonia Loss o n i t

Through a c i Leaves f i r t i

N ( Fertilizer Nitrogen - Plant Uptake NO3 Nitrate

Removed by Removed by Harvest Leaching Removed by Denitrification (Gaseous Loss from Wet Soils 3 General guidelines for mineralization of organic nitrogen in manure for warm season crops:

Estimated Organic N Available To Crops After Manure Application Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 - - - % Of Original Organic N Available - - - Liquid Manure 30 12 6 Solid Manure25126 Compost 20 6 3 RATIO OF NH4-N AND ORGANIC-N IN MANURE

Solid Manure Liquid Manure NH-N Organic NH4-N Organic Dairy 45 55 50 50 Beef 35 65 50 50 Swine 60 40 70 30 Turkey 65 35 - -

Application Methods

• Broadcast • Broadcast incorporated • Injected – knife – sweep

• Irrigation Figure 1. Percent Of Inorganic N Available To Crops For 100% Various Manure Management Systems 90% 90%

65%

50% 50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 5%

Sweep Knife Sprinkler Immediate 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7+ Days Injected Injected Irrigation Incorporation

Time Between Broaccast Surface Application and Incorporation

Estimated Organic N Available To Crops After Manure Application Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 - - - % Of Original Organic N Available - - - Liquid Manure 30 12 6 Solid Manure25126 Compost 2063 P & K CREDITS FOR MANURE -% available first year

Phosphorus - V.Low - Optimum 0.50 High - V.High 1.00 Potassium - 0.85 -100 Phosphorus Management Model For Kansas Crop Production and Manure Management.

Manure Nutrient Recommendation Allocation No Application

100 % 95 %

Sufficiency Starter Starter Recommendation Statement Statement 50 %

Maintenance Relative Yield (%) Recommendation Build Starter Starter Recommendation Statement Statement

20 ppm 30 ppm Critical Value Upper Build

VL L MHVH EX 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 50 ppm Maximum ?

Crop Responsive Soil Test Range Maintenance Manure Environmental Range Management Range Risk Range

Bray 1 Soil Test (ppm) SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT NUTRIENT CREDITING WORKSHEET (A) (B) (C) Manure Test XNutrient Availability Factors=Plant Available Results Nutrients

(Lbs/Ton) (Lbs/Ton)

Organic N 25% Available In Year 0.25 Of Application + NH4 - N Ammonium Availability Factor From Figure 1.

Sum Of Available + Total N Organic & NH4 -N

0.5 For Low-Medium P Soil Tests Total P2O5 1.0 For High-V. High P Soil Tests Total K2O 0.85 LIQUID MANURE MANAGEMENT NUTRIENT CREDITING WORKSHEET Phosphorus(A) Nutrient Management(B) Curve (C) Fig.Manure 1. EffectTest of XManure Application Nutrient Availability Method Factors and Incorporation = Delay Plant Available Results on Ammonium-N Availability. Manure No ApplicationNutrients Farmer / Field Goals & Objectives Region 100 Allocation Region Zone 100(Lbs/1000 gallons (Lbs/1000 gallons 80 80 100 % 90 80 95Organic % N 65 30% Available In Year 70 0.30 20.6 24 % Of OfApplication Total N 6.2 60 50 50+ NH4 - N Available Ammonium40 Availability In First 40 27.8 Factor From Figure30 1. 5.6 Sufficiency 0.2 Starter 50 % 30 Year 20 % NH4-N Available NH4-N % Sum Of Available % Yield 20 10 + Total N 5 Organic & NH4 -N 10 48.4 11.8 0 0 Maintenance 0.5 For Low-Medium P Soil Tests Sw eep Knife Build0 Days 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 StarterDays 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days > 7 Days Total 0.5 Injected20.8Injected 1.0 For High-V. High P Soil Tests 10.4 P2O5 Delay Between Broadcast Application And Incorporation 20 ppm 30 ppm Total K2O 0.85 VL 19.2 LM H VH16.3EX 5 ppm 15 ppm 25 ppm 50 ppm 100 – 200 - ??? ppm

BroadcastHIGHLY CROP RESPONSIVE Application, GROWERIncorporated RISK NUTRIENT MANURE Five / SLUDGE DaysENVIRONMENTAL After NUTRIENT MGT. ZONE MANAGEMENT ZONE MANAGEMENT ZONE CONCERN ZONE Application and Bray P-1 Soil Test Of 14 ppm LIQUID MANURE MANAGEMENT NUTRIENT CREDITING WORKSHEET Phosphorus(A) Nutrient Management(B) Curve (C) Fig. 1. Effect of Manure Application Method and Incorporation Delay Manure Test X Nutrient Availability Factors = Plant Available on Ammonium-N Availability. Results Nutrients 100 Manure No Application 100 Farmer / Field Goals & Objectives Region Allocation Region Zone 90 (Lbs/100080 gallons 80 (Lbs/1000 gallons 100 %80 65 Organic95 %70 N 30% Available In Year 20.6 0.30 60 50 Of Application 6.2 50+ 40 NH4 - N Ammonium Availability 40 27.8 0.8 59 %Factor Of From Total Figure30 1. N 22.2 30 Sufficiency Starter20 50 Available NH4-N % % 20 10 Sum Of Available % Yield Available In First 10 5 + Total N 48.4 28.4 Organic0 & NH4 -N 0 Year Maintenance Sw eep Knife 0 Days 1 Day 0.5 2 Days For Low-Medium 3 Days 4 Days P Soil 5 Tests Days 6 Days 7 Days > 7 Days Build Starter Total Injected Injected 1.0 20.8 1.0 For High-V. High P Soil Tests 20.8 P2O5 Delay Between Broadcast Application And Incorporation 20 ppm Total K2O 30 ppm 19.2 0.85 16.3 VL LM H VHEX 5 ppm 15 ppm 25 ppm 50 ppm 100 – 200 - ??? ppm

Assume KnifeHIGHLY CROP Injected RESPONSIVE and BrayGROWER P-1 RISK NUTRIENT Soil TestMANURE Of / SLUDGE 34 ppmENVIRONMENTAL NUTRIENT MGT. ZONE MANAGEMENT ZONE MANAGEMENT ZONE CONCERN ZONE N Based Program

P Based Program Manure Rate Example Calculation Next Crop - 170 bu/A Corn Previous Crop - Soybeans Manure Composition (Available) Assume Manure Knife Injected 28.4 lbs N / 1000 gal. Bray P-1 Soil Test Of 34 ppm 20.1 lbs P2O5 / 1000 gal. SOM = 2.0 %, 16.3 lbs K2O / 1000 gal. Residual N = 30 lb N/A Nitrate N/A

N Rec = (1.6 x 175 bu/A) – SOM – Nitrate - 40 lbs/A Soybean Credit = 170 lbs N/A Required

P Rec = Starter P No More Than 2.0 Times Crop Removal As Manure

Crop P Removal = 175 bu/A x 0.34 lbs P2O5/bu = 60 lbs P2O5 Crop Removal If Manure Rate Based On N Recommendation:

Manure Rate = (170 lbs N / 28.4 lbs N per 1000 gal) = 6,000 gal /A

P Rate = 6,000 gal/A x 20.1 lbs P2O5 / 1000 gal = 120 lbs P2O5/A Applied •Is 6,000 gal./A The Best Application Rate ? •Meets Crop N Needs •Doesn’t Exceed Allowable P Application Rate (130 lbs/A)

•Should All Of The Required N Come From Manure ? •Whims Of Mother Nature (mineralization rate, etc.) ? •Variability In Manure Analysis •Synchrony Of Crop N Needs and Manure N Availability ? •Fertilizer N Much More Predictable •PSNT Test On Manured Fields ? If Manure Rate Based On Providing A Minimum Amount Of N As Early Fertilizer N Application:

Want 55 lbs N/A As Early UAN (15 gal. Of 32% UAN)

Manure Rate = (170 lbs N - 55) / 28.4 lb N per 1000 gal) = (115 lbs Manure N Desired / 28.4 lb N per 1000 gal) = 4,000 gal /A

P Rate = 4,000 gal/A x 20.1 lbs P2O5 / 1000 gal. = 80 lbs P2O5/A Applied

•Is 4,000 gal./A A Better Application Rate ? •Lessens Dependency On Mother Nature - Mineralization •Reduces Increase In P Soil Test Values •Increases Manure Hauling Distance / Cost •Requires More Acres For Manure Application Comparing Manure Application Strategies N Based P Based • Highest rates • Max. Nutrient Efficiency • P & K buildup • Little P & K buildup • Labor efficient • Labor inefficient • Land efficient • Requires more land • Higher Crop Risk • Lower Crop Risk • Higher • Lower Environmental Environmental Risk Risk I have calculated the appropriate manure rate, so what can go wrong?

Manure application is not uniform Loss of soil nitrogen Mineralization rate is less than anticipated Volatilization loss greater than expected Manure segregation ??????? Manure / Nutrient Management

• If Possible Base Manure Rates On Crop P Needs or Only A Portion Of Crop N Needs • Apply Manure To Lowest P Fields / Portions Of Fields • Identify And Avoid Portions Of Landscape Having Highest Probability Of Surface Water P Loss - Greatest Risk • Do Not Apply Manure In Close Proximity To Surface Water - Consider Buffer Strips • Avoid Making Applications During High Runoff Portions Of Year • Knife or Incorporate Application (conservation tillage?) • Minimize Erosion Potential • Do Not Apply To Frozen Ground